In his Friday New York Times column, economist Paul Krugman attacked Vermont Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders for still trying to win the nomination, and for not being "a details guy."
According to Krugman, Sanders is insisting that the superdelegates "should give him the nomination even if he loses the popular vote," which is hypocritical, given that "not long ago many Sanders supporters were fulminating about how Hillary was going to steal the nomination by having superdelegates put her over the top despite losing the primaries."
Sanders is also, to Krugman's mind, claiming that voters in the "Deep South" shouldn't count as much as voters in states that incline favorably to him -- because votes from the "Deep South," in fact, "distort reality":
As it happens, this isn’t true — the calendar, which front-loaded some states very favorable to Mr. Sanders, hasn’t been a big factor in the race. Also, swing-state Florida isn’t the Deep South. But never mind. The big problem with this argument should be obvious. Mrs. Clinton didn’t win big in the South on the strength of conservative voters; she won by getting an overwhelming majority of black voters. This puts a different spin on things, doesn’t it?
Is it possible that Mr. Sanders doesn’t know this, that he imagines that Mrs. Clinton is riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats, as opposed to, let’s be blunt, the descendants of slaves? Maybe. He is not, as you may have noticed, a details guy...